Behdin v. Edlow

On July 1, 2026, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' administrative motion to extend the deadline to file their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment; the order was signed by Judge Susan van Keulen.

The docket entry indicates an administrative motion was filed under Civil Local Rule 7-11; the entry includes no details about who filed it, the motion's substance, or any relief requested.

Defendant Joseph B. Edlow (represented by John Wollman) filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 55) on June 25, 2026.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to address the government's arguments about the effect of Dorcas v. USCIS and USCIS's website update in the plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their summary-judgment motion; the court reminded the parties that that reply is due July 2, 2026. The entry is a text-only order and does not resolve any substantive motion.

On June 18, 2026, the defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The filing includes a declaration by J. Wollman and Exhibits A–E: a June 5, 2026 Dorcas memorandum and order; a June 11, 2026 Dorcas order entering judgment; a June 12, 2026 USCIS web update; a USCIS case-status screenshot; and a USPS tracking delivery confirmation.

The clerk's notice vacated the hearings that had been scheduled for June 30, 2026 (motion to dismiss) and July 21, 2026 (motion for summary judgment), and states the court will reset hearings if necessary.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition/response to the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 49) on June 11, 2026, attaching three exhibits and a proposed order.

The court granted the plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file a late response to the defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered the plaintiffs to file that response on ECF on June 11, 2026. The court also set a new deadline for the defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss: June 18, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and noted that a memorandum in support was lodged at ECF No. 54 with their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The filing schedules a hearing on July 21, 2026 at 10:00 AM and sets response and reply deadlines of June 25, 2026 and July 2, 2026, respectively.

The plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a late response to the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 49), attaching two exhibits. The filing was submitted on 2026-06-10.

The court signed an order addressing the parties' stipulation to continue the Case Management Conference. The docket entry does not state what the order directs or whether a new date was set.

A stipulation with a proposed order seeking to continue the Case Management Conference was filed on May 26, 2026 (docketed as filed by Joseph B. Edlow, counsel John Wollman). The entry does not state any new date or whether the court granted the request.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and scheduled a hearing on the motion; the filing sets deadlines for the plaintiffs' response and for the defendant's reply. The motion includes several declarations and a proposed order as attachments.

On April 22, 2026, Judge Susan van Keulen signed an order granting the defendant's Administrative Motion (Dkt. 44) to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint and to file a motion for summary judgment. The docket entry does not state the new deadline dates.

Defendant filed a notice providing a copy of the court's April 16, 2026 order (the preliminary-injunction order) as an attachment.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition/response to Defendant's administrative motion to extend deadlines on April 21, 2026.

A docket entry states that a “Related Case Order” was signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 2026-04-17. The entry does not describe the order’s content or explain what procedural effect, if any, it has, so the exact impact is unclear from the text provided.

Defendant filed an administrative motion seeking to extend its deadlines to respond to the complaint and to file a motion for summary judgment; the filing notes that a response was due April 20, 2026 and requests an extension.

The clerk set an in-person Case Management Conference for June 9, 2026 at 10:00 AM and directed that the Joint Case Management Statement is due June 2, 2026; the clerk also required advance notice identifying counsel who will appear by June 5, 2026 at 3:00 PM.

On April 16, 2026, Judge Susan van Keulen signed and filed an order concerning the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (document 6). The entry does not state the substance or procedural effect of that order, so its outcome is unclear from the text provided.

The transcript of the March 3, 2026 proceedings was filed and the docket entry identifies the applicable deadlines for transcript redaction and release.

Defendant filed an opposition to the pending motion to relate the cases.

Plaintiff filed a third notice of change in material facts, referencing their prior response and attaching multiple exhibits.

Plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to relate this case to a subsequently filed case (Shahi, et al. v. Edlow, 5:26-cv-3113).

Plaintiff filed another notice providing supplemental authority in support of their preliminary-injunction motion, attaching a recent case docket.

Defendant filed a response addressing Plaintiffs' notice of change in material facts and the court's related orders on April 7, 2026.

Plaintiff filed a notice titled 'Second Notice of Change in Material Facts' attaching an email from Iran OPT.

Plaintiff filed a second notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching an order from Doe v. USCIS.

Defendant filed a stipulation with a proposed order seeking extensions of time to respond to the complaint and to file a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff filed the chart responding to the court's March 3 order (the filing includes an exhibit titled 'Chart').

Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching an order from Bowser v. Noem.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction on 2026-02-25, attaching Exhibit A (an order in Varniab granting a preliminary injunction). The filing record shows it was modified on 2026-02-26.

The defendant filed a notice referencing the court's Order on Stipulation and the Order on the Ex Parte Application and attached Exhibit A, a certified administrative record for USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194.

The docket entry shows that Joseph B. Edlow filed an opposition/response to the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (document 6). The filing includes three attached declarations by Emigdio Martinez, Ramlah Moussa, and Christopher Humphries.

The docket entry indicates that a Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge was filed on behalf of the defendant; the entry does not state whether the defendant consented to or declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

The docket entry notes a notice of substitution of counsel: Attorney John Louis Wollman was substituted in place of Molly Anne Landon Friend to represent the defendant.

A stipulation with a proposed order was filed by the defendant (through counsel) addressing the Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery (document 7), proposing production of a second administrative record and withdrawal of the ex parte application.

An attorney, Molly Anne Landon Friend, filed a notice of appearance on February 5, 2026, indicating she will represent one of the defendants in the case.

The plaintiffs filed a Consent/Declination form regarding whether to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge on 2026-02-05. The entry does not state whether the plaintiffs consented to or declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

Counsel for the defendant filed a stipulation with a proposed order requesting an extension of time for the defendant's response to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The entry reflects the filing of that stipulation on 2026-02-05 but does not state whether the extension was granted or a new deadline was set.

The clerk issued a notice reminding the plaintiffs that they must file a consent to or declination of magistrate-judge jurisdiction and providing a link to the form; the notice says parties were also notified by phone or email. The filing deadline is February 12, 2026.

A defendant filed a Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge on 2026-02-05; the entry does not indicate whether the defendant consented to or declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

A text-only order dated February 5, 2026, states that defendants' opposition to the 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction was due on February 4, 2026, and directs the parties to promptly notify the court if the briefing schedule has been adjusted by agreement.

The plaintiffs filed a notice titled “Plaintiffs' Response Regarding Briefing Schedule” that references the court's prior order (document 11). The entry does not state the substance of the response or whether it changed any deadlines or prompted any court action.

A filing titled “Summons Returned Executed” was entered indicating the plaintiffs returned executed summons as to all defendants; the filing includes Exhibits A–C. The entry was filed on 2026-01-29 and reflects service-related documentation being submitted to the court.

The docket entry indicates a summons was issued on January 22, 2026 naming Joseph B. Edlow, U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General. The entry itself does not state any service or deadline information.

The docket entry indicates that counsel Curtis Morrison filed a proposed summons on January 21, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The filing schedules a hearing for March 3, 2026 at 10:00 AM in San Jose (Courtroom 6) and sets response and reply deadlines of February 4, 2026 and February 11, 2026, respectively.

The court docket shows an "Immigration Mandamus Case Procedural Order" was filed and entered on January 21, 2026; the entry text provides no details about the order's content or any deadlines or required actions.

The plaintiffs filed an ex parte application asking the court to permit expedited discovery; the filing includes a memorandum of law, a cited D.D.C. case, and a proposed order as attachments.

A plaintiff filed a notice that includes an attached exhibit titled “Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases.” The filing was submitted to the court on 2026-01-20.

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen; the entry instructs counsel for the plaintiff or removing party to serve the complaint, summons, the assigned judge's standing orders, and other new-case documents, states the summons will be issued electronically upon receipt, and says a scheduling order will be sent within two business days. The docket also sets a deadline for consent or declination to proceed before the magistrate judge by 2026-02-03.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a petition for a writ of mandamus against all defendants, paid the filing fee, and attached exhibits including two USCIS Policy Memoranda (one labeled PM-602-0194), related communications, online case status screenshots, a USCIS admission, and a summons.